Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:03:18.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Allelopathy in Dwarf Spikerush (Eleocharis coloradoensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. A. Frank and
N. Dechoretz
P. A. Frank
Affiliation:
Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Botany Dep., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
N. Dechoretz
Affiliation:
Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Botany Dep., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The production of new shoots of American pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus Poir.) and sago pondweed (P. pectinatus L.) was reduced significantly when winterbuds and tubers of these species were planted in dwarf spikerush [Eleocharis coloradoensis (Britt.) Gilly] sod. In most instances, the number of shoots produced was several times greater when winterbuds and tubers were planted in bare soil than when planted in spikerush sod. Similar results were obtained when the pondweeds were grown in separate aquaria, each aquarium being exposed to 500 ml of leachate per day from spikerush sod. The differences in reproduction of pondweeds could not be attributed to altered water quality nor to reduced levels of nutrients. No appreciable allelopathic response was elicited by the pondweed plants originating from planted tubers or winterbuds. The principal response appeared to be reduction in numbers of new shoots produced from the original propagules, although the reduction in biomass of the pondweeds exposed to the effects of spikerush was obvious. Of the two pondweeds investigated, sago pondweed was most sensitive to the influence of spikerush.

Keywords

Sago pondweedAmerican pondweedcompetitionaquatic weedsinhibition of reproduction

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , September 1980, pp. 499 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Holm, L. 1969. Chemical interactions between plants on agricultural lands. Down Earth. 25:16–22.Google Scholar
2. Lucas, C. E. 1947. The ecological effects of external metabolites. Biol. Rev. 22:270–295.Google Scholar
3. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1971. Biochemical Interactions Among Plants. 134 pp.Google Scholar
4. Oborn, E. T., Moran, W. T., Greene, K. T., and Bartley, T. R. 1954. Weed control investigations on some important plants which impede the flow of western irrigation waters. Joint Laboratory Rept. SI-2. U.S. Dep. Interior Bur. of Reclam., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Denver, Colorado. 84 pp.Google Scholar
5. Peltier, W. H. and Welch, E. B. 1969. Factors affecting growth of rooted aquatics in a river. Weed Sci. 17:412–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Prescott, G. W. 1960. Biological disturbances resulting from algae populations in standing waters. Pages 22–37 in Tryon, C. A. Jr. and Hartman, R. T., eds., The Ecology of Algae. Spec. Publ. 2, Pymatuning Lab. Field Biol., Univ. Pittsburg.Google Scholar
7. Rice, T. R. 1954. Biotic influences affecting population growth of planktonic algae. Fisheries Bull., U.S. Fish Wildlife Ser. 54:227–245.Google Scholar
8. Rice, E. L. 1974. Allelopathy. Academic Press, New York. 353 pp.Google Scholar
9. Szczepanski, A. J. 1977. Allelopathy as a means of biological control of water weeds. Aquat. Bot. 3:193–197.Google Scholar
10. Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia. 217 pp.Google Scholar
11. Yeo, R. R. and Fisher, T. W. 1970. Progress and potential for biological weed control with fish, pathogens, competitive plants and snails. Tech. Pap. FAO Int. Conf. on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 688 pp.Google Scholar